FLUORIDATION: TIME FOR A SECOND LOOK?

[Reg Griswold]

No scientific evidence to show fluoride reduces tooth decay.



http://www.purewatergazette.net/fluoridation.htm

FLUORIDATION: TIME FOR A SECOND LOOK?

by Paul, Ellen and Michael Connett*

"In 1997 the union representing scientists, engineers and lawyers at
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington, D.C.,
voted to support a California citizen initiative to stop fluoridation
of public drinking water. In 1999 the union's vice-president released
a paper explaining the union's opposition to fluoridation.[1]

Fluoridation is the practice of adding fluoride to the public water
supply to reduce dental decay. U.S. fluoridation trials began in 1945
and by 1992 approximately 56% of the U.S. public received its water
from fluoridated systems.[2]

The public health community justified medicating whole communities via
public drinking water using certain arguments that recent research has
now shown to be false.

Not only is there no safety margin for dental fluorosis but there is
growing evidence that there may be no safety margin for changes to
bone structure and impacts on the brain, thyroid, and other soft
tissues, especially when it is coupled with nutrient deficiencies,
particularly iodide."

The evidence
1) Amyloid deposits (associated with Alzheimer's Disease and other
forms of dementia) were elevated in the brains of both fluoridated
groups compared to the control group. ....

4) With fluoride's known capacity to depress thyroid activity, it
seems that there may be a link between current fluoride consumption
and the prevalence of hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid). More than
twenty million people in the U.S. receive treatment for thyroid
problems and many others are thought to go undiagnosed.[12]"

see website for more evidence

* * *


reg

Trust us we're experts!

[clark]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:05:10 +1000, Reg Griswold <reg...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Interesting topic Reg.
It seems that fluoride addition to drinking water has more to do with
sedating or dumbing down of the public rather than any real concern
for tooth decay.

If you do a search for NAZI GERMANY and FLUORIDE you will find that
the nazis used it to keep POWs docile.

Clark

[Ernie]

On 5/19/2013 6:05 PM, Reg Griswold wrote:
> No scientific evidence to show fluoride reduces tooth decay.

z z z z z z z z z z

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN_zf3GkLRg


--
"I do binge a little here and there - so what?" - carole hubbard
Message-ID: <77ed1283.04063...@posting.google.com>

[John H. Gohde]

On May 19, 6:39 pm, Ernie <er...@bande.org> wrote:

Yawn!

> On 5/19/2013 6:05 PM, Reg Griswold wrote:
>
> > No scientific evidence to show fluoride reduces tooth decay.

Great writeup.

Here is a great video on the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vaERfTZTSo

[Bob Officer]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:05:10 +1000, in misc.health.alternative, Reg
Griswold <reg...@gmail.com> wrote:

>No scientific evidence to show fluoride reduces tooth decay.

Actually there is, carole.

>
>
>http://www.purewatergazette.net/fluoridation.htm
>
>FLUORIDATION: TIME FOR A SECOND LOOK?
>
>by Paul, Ellen and Michael Connett*
>
>"In 1997 the union representing scientists, engineers and lawyers at

it isn't a "Union" but an organized group. The term union commonly
refers to a professional group, organized to protect it members from
unfair business practices.

>the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington, D.C.,
>voted to support a California citizen initiative to stop fluoridation
>of public drinking water. In 1999 the union's vice-president released
>a paper explaining the union's opposition to fluoridation.[1]

this union vote is not binding upon anyone. The wording attempts to
make this ad hoc group Quasi-govermental or strictly professional
based.


<snip of falsified information>

>
>reg
is just another stinky sock of carole. nothing to see here.

--
Bob Officer
"Anecdotal evidence can be more reliable than scientific studies."
Carole Hubbard 20march 2011
Message-ID: <jl5hp.13420$MF5....@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>

[Clayton]

Maybe Ernie has gotten himself one too many flu shots.

Mercury and Fluoride - The Dumbing Down Of A Population
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3ARhMPVu-A


Clayton

[Reg Griswold]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 16:54:34 -0700, Bob Officer <*.*@*.*> wrote:

>On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:05:10 +1000, in misc.health.alternative, Reg
>Griswold <reg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>No scientific evidence to show fluoride reduces tooth decay.
>
>Actually there is, carole.
>
>>
>>
>>http://www.purewatergazette.net/fluoridation.htm
>>
>>FLUORIDATION: TIME FOR A SECOND LOOK?
>>
>>by Paul, Ellen and Michael Connett*
>>
>>"In 1997 the union representing scientists, engineers and lawyers at
>
>it isn't a "Union" but an organized group. The term union commonly
>refers to a professional group, organized to protect it members from
>unfair business practices.

Nice avoidance of the topic bob.

>
>>the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington, D.C.,
>>voted to support a California citizen initiative to stop fluoridation
>>of public drinking water. In 1999 the union's vice-president released
>>a paper explaining the union's opposition to fluoridation.[1]
>
>this union vote is not binding upon anyone. The wording attempts to
>make this ad hoc group Quasi-govermental or strictly professional
>based.

The point is that enough scientists (people who think for themselves)
object to mass medication of drinking water.

>
>
><snip of falsified information>
>
>>
>>reg
>is just another stinky sock of carole. nothing to see here.

The only socks I see are those of Ernie and Woody, and before that Big
Stidd and Little Stidd, and Chomchumpski -- who knows how many else?


Reg

"Trust us, we're experts!"

[Woody]

On 5/21/2013 4:20 AM, Reg Griswold wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 16:54:34 -0700, Bob Officer <*.*@*.*> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:05:10 +1000, in misc.health.alternative, Reg
>> Griswold <reg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No scientific evidence to show fluoride reduces tooth decay.
>>
>> Actually there is, carole.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.purewatergazette.net/fluoridation.htm
>>>
>>> FLUORIDATION: TIME FOR A SECOND LOOK?
>>>
>>> by Paul, Ellen and Michael Connett*
>>>
>>> "In 1997 the union representing scientists, engineers and lawyers at
>>
>> it isn't a "Union" but an organized group. The term union commonly
>> refers to a professional group, organized to protect it members from
>> unfair business practices.
>
> Nice avoidance of the topic bob.

No topic avoided. The assertion that there's a 'union' was refuted.

>>> the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington, D.C.,
>>> voted to support a California citizen initiative to stop fluoridation
>>> of public drinking water. In 1999 the union's vice-president released
>>> a paper explaining the union's opposition to fluoridation.[1]
>>
>> this union vote is not binding upon anyone. The wording attempts to
>> make this ad hoc group Quasi-govermental or strictly professional
>> based.
>
> The point is that enough scientists (people who think for themselves)
> object to mass medication of drinking water.

Only the authors (3) object.

>> <snip of falsified information>
>>
>>>
>>> reg
>> is just another stinky sock of carole. nothing to see here.
>
> The only socks I see are those of Ernie and Woody, and before that Big
> Stidd and Little Stidd, and Chomchumpski -- who knows how many else

The difference between the use of a pseudonym and the creation of a
sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party
unaffiliated with the puppeteer. A pseudomym is just an alternative
identity for the same party.





--
"Men are bullies, they start and conduct all the wars.
All pedophiles and rapists are men. Practically all
murderers and criminals are men. All secret societies
that plot against the world are populated by men. All
big corporations that rob and loot the world's resources
are run by men." - carole hubbard the misandrist
Message-ID: <5tehl.16405$cu....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>

[John H. Gohde]

On May 21, 6:45 am, Woody <wo...@woodworks-nospam.com> wrote:

The problem with Woody is that this dope seems to think that people
are interested in the crap that this fool posts.

Sorry, but the joke is on Woody.

[Bob Officer]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:20:42 +1000, in misc.health.alternative, Reg

Griswold <reg...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 19 May 2013 16:54:34 -0700, Bob Officer <*.*@*.*> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:05:10 +1000, in misc.health.alternative, Reg
>>Griswold <reg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>No scientific evidence to show fluoride reduces tooth decay.
>>
>>Actually there is, carole.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.purewatergazette.net/fluoridation.htm
>>>
>>>FLUORIDATION: TIME FOR A SECOND LOOK?
>>>
>>>by Paul, Ellen and Michael Connett*
>>>
>>>"In 1997 the union representing scientists, engineers and lawyers at
>>
>>it isn't a "Union" but an organized group. The term union commonly
>>refers to a professional group, organized to protect it members from
>>unfair business practices.
>
>Nice avoidance of the topic bob.

The point I am making is how can you trust an organization which
misleads you right from the start? It isn't a union of any sort. the
program is the real descriptive word "ad hoc" has a bad connotation.

>>
>>>the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington, D.C.,
>>>voted to support a California citizen initiative to stop fluoridation
>>>of public drinking water. In 1999 the union's vice-president released
>>>a paper explaining the union's opposition to fluoridation.[1]
>>
>>this union vote is not binding upon anyone. The wording attempts to
>>make this ad hoc group Quasi-govermental or strictly professional
>>based.
>
>The point is that enough scientists (people who think for themselves)
>object to mass medication of drinking water.

No carole that isn't true read and look up how many "scientists" and
their actual qualifications and fields of expertise, before you give
any weight to the statement. "Fluoride" is a naturally occurring
substance found in the drinking water around the world.

The truth is this group is basically a bunch of people with no real
qualifications playing experts. and applying false or misleading
titles like "health ranger" or "consumer advocate".

>
>>
>>
>><snip of falsified information>
>>
>>>
>>>reg
>>is just another stinky sock of carole. nothing to see here.
>
>The only socks I see are those of Ernie and Woody, and before that Big
>Stidd and Little Stidd, and Chomchumpski -- who knows how many else?

I don't see them trying to play different people. They never made any
attempt to make people perceive them of any more than one person.

You however are pathetic in your feeble attempt to achieve your
stated goal.


--
Bob Officer
Message-ID: <c74f794e-d25a-4153...@d2g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>
"I just think of it as background noise.
It helps give mha more validity by increasing group activity."
Carole justifying chung's postings.
Then she demands I "do" something about him:
Message-ID: <0fc33205-d6e0-41ab...@qi8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
"All I'm saying is if you find chung as annoying and ridiculous as the
rest of us, instead of blocking him out you should take him to task.

and now you see why carole is considered confused.

[Bob Officer]

THis article tries to project that it was a group of people working
inside the EPA in a quasi-official part of that government
organization.

>>> <snip of falsified information>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> reg
>>> is just another stinky sock of carole. nothing to see here.
>>
>> The only socks I see are those of Ernie and Woody, and before that Big
>> Stidd and Little Stidd, and Chomchumpski -- who knows how many else
>
>
>The difference between the use of a pseudonym and the creation of a
>sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party
>unaffiliated with the puppeteer. A pseudomym is just an alternative
>identity for the same party.

I doubt carole can see any differences between the two different
concepts.

[Woody]

The article fails in that regard. But that's par for the course with
carole. she either cites baseless articles, or misinterprets them if
they have any basis in fact.

>>>> <snip of falsified information>
>>>>
>>>>> reg
>>>> is just another stinky sock of carole. nothing to see here.
>>>
>>> The only socks I see are those of Ernie and Woody, and before that Big
>>> Stidd and Little Stidd, and Chomchumpski -- who knows how many else
>>
>> The difference between the use of a pseudonym and the creation of a
>> sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party
>> unaffiliated with the puppeteer. A pseudomym is just an alternative
>> identity for the same party.
>
> I doubt carole can see any differences between the two different
> concepts.

And not seeing the difference, carole will continue to post nonsense.

But then, carole is the queen of nonsense.

[Woody]

On 5/21/2013 9:21 AM, Bob Officer wrote:

she will not see any difference. If she did, she'd be acquiescing to the
criticism here against her.

she will continue to justify her sock-puppetry by alluding to the use of
pseudonyms, like a recording in endless loop, and believing her
justification has validity.

she will go on and on about it, until some other issue takes center
stage for her.

In the interim, she scores no points with anyone, other than perhaps
Gohde, who now has the distinction of being led by carole, holding his nose.

Such is the dysfunction of carole hubbard on usenet. Hopefully there
will be some comic relief along the way. ;-)

[Syamu Mamilla M1]

dfgdfgdfgd

[John H. Gohde]

On May 21, 10:11 am, Woody <wo...@woodworks-nospam.com> wrote:
> On 5/21/2013 9:21 AM, Bob Officer wrote:
>
> In the interim, she scores no points with anyone, other than perhaps
> Gohde, who now has the distinction of being led by carole, holding his nose.

Woody, whoever that sock-puppet is, has the distinction of having less
of a mind than Bob Officer. A real dumb-ass prick who takes his
orders from Bob Officer.

[2]

Clayton, AKA Clark is a "sock puppet by proxy" utilized by
Bob Officer but performed by Rob Lindman, AKA Peter B.,
Clayton, Clark, Psycho, Etc. This scheme gives the appearance
of fair & balanced, pro & con, in mha. MHA is a farce.